Daily Record leads The Way Again..

http://www.not606.com/forumdisplay.php/139-International-Rugby-League

 

Chick Young thinks Peter Lawwell inhabits the Diddysphere? How so? That seems a bit weird. Still, get off our diddy lawn, high-achievers, and take your fancy successes with you.

I feel I must be missing something really obvious, but I can't quite see how little Chicky would think such a thing?

"....it is very easy for Celtic fans to sit in judgement over other clubs. Failing to do the "right" thing damns them all to an eternity of being marked with the brush of Hunnery.....It isn't really fare, but it is what will happen."

Hmm. That's very reasonable of you, of course, but I feel it's probably perfectly fair for Celtic fans to sit in judgement over other clubs (in this instance). And I think many fans will sit in scathing judgement of their own clubs (and Celtic, of course, depending on how it all goes) if they fail to do the "right" thing. (Imagine the chaos of us all sitting in sniffily fierce judgement of each other? God, it's going to be brilliant.) I'm with Rod Petrie in all of this and feel the issue is fairly unequivocal - no matter the cost, no matter the potential (and threatened) chaos.

 

Oops. Sorry, Mick, I somehow missed the fact that you’d responded. What a blind tosser.

Do we? How come? I'm not sure I follow. I thought we’d come to some sort of agreement on this? Gutted.

That sounds about right, although I maybe referenced “selfishness” or “greed” rather than “individualism” – depending on how moody and/or revolutionary I was feeling. I don’t know. Could be wrong. “Individualism”, after all, is a label that most people will fondly attach to themselves at some point or other – and there’s often not much wrong with (tempered) individualism as a concept, to be fair – and may sometimes be used as blanket cover for the more specifically dull predictability of a small-minded and petulant greed. (I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, incidentally, just to be perfectly clear.) But yes, that all seems reasonable enough.

Why thank you.

Oh dear. That looks like an unfortunate mistake. If only you’d been more careful with your language. The declarative “but really it starts to lose its way a little” makes it sound as if you know this for sure. And you don’t. You can’t. How could you? It’s my argument, after all – or, more precisely, it’s my assembled collection of thoughts and feelings and mutable ideas and it’s my perception of the greater good.

If you tell me my worldview loses its way when I “make moves to extend the “working for the greater good” policy to include paying for weapons”.....I’ll simply tell you that it doesn’t, not yet, not for me. So you’re only ever going to be 50% right to begin with, unfortunately, which should probably be treated as a certainty-free zone and stepped through with all due care. Do you see? (Sorry if this sounds picky or needling – not the intention at all – but it’s as well to be clear on these things.)

But how to your mind did I lose my way, I wonder? (I’m not saying it’s impossible, incidentally, it happens with galling regularity, I’m just wondering how you feel it might have happened in this instance).

Let’s watch the highlights and see:

I don’t personally feel that schools or hospitals are punishment blah blah blah and, having accepted the likely necessity of an army, I don’t particularly feel that spending money on this army is punishment, either, whilst happily accepting that other people might not like to see their money being spent this way - given the very obvious fact that governments can’t please all of the people all of the time and that the issue of military spending is always likely to be contentious.

Working for the (perceived) greater good may be the generalised ideal, of course, but I felt I had made it clear that in the meantime – and probably for all time – we just have to accept that our taxes will often be spent on things that we personally may not like and that we may also, rightly or wrongly, consider to be wasteful/distasteful.

And maybe I failed to make clear the more general point I was (implicitly) forwarding: my idea of what constitutes a greater good may be radically different to your own. So who’s right? And how is this decision fairly come to?

I feel that it’s maybe almost impossible to say and that people will always disagree about these things and so, if it can at least be agreed that the collection of taxes is necessary, we’ll all just have to put up with the fact that sometimes our taxes will be spent on things we would rather not have them being spent on, without necessarily or automatically delegitimising our fondly held ideals.

Is this fair enough? Please say “yes”, Mr Mick. Please, please, please.

(Ach, ****e. Need to quickly take the dogs out, sorry. I’ll post this and then start getting back to the rest in about 10 mins or so.)

 

Right so.....

Maybe, but I think there’s often everything to be gained by going over such things again (and again) and I’m always happy to do so. And if your objections are moral – and I’m taking it that your personal morality dictates your unease at effectively bankrolling (through taxes) military action and interventions? - then it’s certainly worth seeing how that pans out.

This may be true, but what point(s) are you actually trying to make? Switzerland is better than Britain? I can live with that. I like Switzerland, it’s a good place – I once lived there for half a year (Chur) – and I would very generally rate it higher than Britain. No problem. Unless you mean that Swiss neutrality is the thing that sets them apart and may lead to greater prosperity? Maybe. But would this then be your answer to all world affairs: neutrality? Don’t get involved? Let others do the dirty stuff and keep the money we save to ourselves? It’s tempting, no two ways about it, although I’m not sure I could live with the feeling of disengaged moral cowardice. Personal choice and perspective, obviously.

And if that’s not your answer, what is?

Is military intervention ever, under any circumstances, justifiable? Is fighting a war (defensively or aggressively) ever, under any circumstances, permissible? Is having an army ever acceptable? Would it make sense to equip an army with weapons? If you answer “yes” to any of these questions, then we’ll get back to how this might all be paid for (in a democracy).

If you simply mean to say that you don’t care for military projection in some instances, then sure, I would feel similarly inclined – I abjure war and the settlement of disputes through violence, as I said, whilst acknowledging the occasional (historical) necessity and (perceived) moral imperative to do so – and hate the thought that any of my money might be going towards enabling an undertaking that I found to be morally corrupt. I would never lose sight of the fact, however, that some of those actions I may have personally favoured – like Iraq, say, with huge reservations – would leave other (tax-paying) people wholly, and equally, disgusted. (Never minding some of those people on the receiving end of our democratically paid for bombs.)

But I think you maybe said you wouldn’t mind these actions so much if the politicians at least had the decency to be honest about them?

So where does that leave us? You may be happy enough to see military might projected in some instances, just so long as the politicians square things with your conscience first or give you an answer that satisfies your perception of their honesty, but perhaps don’t feel that taxpayers should pay for this in any way – at least not if they want to claim an imagined moral high ground and talk of the “greater good” because war (and paying for weapons) is, by definition, A Bad Thing? How would that work, exactly? Or do you only want to contribute towards those things (or military interventions) that you personally favour? I think this is maybe put forward as an idea by certain people – picking and choosing where our taxes may go – but is generally quickly seen to be unworkable. Who knows?

Or maybe you meant you would simply accept their answer, without lending your support (tax, moral or otherwise) to their cause? I’m not entirely sure how that works, to be honest, but can see there might be room for such a thing.

The existence of the British Army was presented to me as a fait accompli, it was already here when mummy found me in a basket on the banks of the river Dee and it’ll be here when I ascend triumphantly to heaven on a boo-boo with golden wings. I can’t remember exactly how (or when) I first started thinking that it was probably morally acceptable to have an army and weapons paid for through taxation, although it will likely have gone something (very loosely) like this – please excuse any repetitions:

Has there ever been a point in history where the use of weapons against “foreigners” has been justified? And has there ever been a point where this may be reasonably considered to have been for a greater (moral) good?

If there has ever been such an occasion in the past, is it at least possible that such an occasion may arise again in the future? And if it is at least possible that such an event may occur again in the future, would it not then simply be prudent to keep and maintain a standing army, rather than scramble together an ill-trained and lightly-armed rabble at the last possible moment or depend wholly upon the help of others?

And if it is recognised as desirable to have a well-trained (and well-equipped) army, would this not require money – whether we agree or not with all of the actions this army may be asked to undertake in the future? And if it does require money – which it does (weapons don’t tend to come free) – then what better way might we pay for this in a democracy than through our established systems of taxation?

So…..it then maybe comes back to the question of feeling a moral revulsion at certain (if not all) military ventures, no? I think I’ve already said that I don’t know how to reconcile people’s differing views on what taxes should be spent on – do you? – so must opt instead to simply accept the rough with the infrequently smooth; whilst exercising my democratic right to vote out those people who may occasionally morally disgust me, in the hope that the madness will end.

My sense of what may constitute the greater good may very occasionally (and with a screaming internal anguish) include military action/intervention. This feeling doesn’t lose its way on your say so, unfortunately - if only things were that simple - it’s merely that you found something on which you appeared to feel differently. Show me that your way might realistically feel better, Administrator, and I’ll change my mind instantly - with glee.

What would you have me do about this?

 

Wow, if only you had the power to do anything about it ... that would certainly be something!

Given the state of things at the time of the last elections in Britain didn't something around 61%, of an obviously disillusioned electorate, cast their vote and that ended in a 'hung' result? So it seems, no matter what the issue, the barstewards, sorry, the people, tend to vote along traditional party lines with the 'swingers' being influenced by the so-called popular press/media controlled by the likes of Murdoch etc. Some chance, then, of we powerless, confuzzled, idealistic folk being able to do anything about anything ... unless, of course, you plan to stand for election and have a meteoric rise to the top whilst remaining steadfastly uncorrupted on your way there?

 

You can be my campaign manager, Espania, galvanising the crowds and prompting them towards stunned applause as I drone mercilessly on about all manner of vexingly dull issues. I think this could work.

It’s a bit depressing, actually, that people stick so fixedly with what they know, embedding all the usual suspects in power for what feels like it may be an eternity. It breeds a sense of (sometimes angry) powerlessness, perhaps, with a natural response eventually being “what’s the point?”

I'm away off to get my by-election haircut and I'll trust I can bank on your vote, Sir.

 

I could be persuaded sir ... though you'll have to show some humility (at least in public, as I think that should help kid the electorate ... but more importantly, I'll need guaranteed of the megabucks I'm going to make out of it all).

 

Don’t worry about a thing……shhhh. I’ll see you right. The stuff we’re going to claim on expenses will make your eyes water. The system is just begging to be scammed, Espania, and it’s only taxpayers money we’ll be stealing, anyway, so where’s the harm in that? If they’re going to buy into my fake show of humility on the stump – and I’m sure I’ll master fake humility somehow (Tony Blair did) - they actually deserve to be robbed, the bleating shower of mugs.

After that, it just becomes a question of scaring these low-life fools (I need to start working on fake humility pretty soon, I'd say) into believing that the real threat comes from France – and mobilising our troops accordingly.

A new dawn breaks.

(Have a good Friday night, Espania, that's me off from here for the day.)

 

I'm your man sir ...your eloquent discourse has won me over.

As your campaign manager, my first piece of advice is not to get your hair cut too short - you'll look too much like a hard man who might give the proverbial Glasgow or Gorbals, Kiss to anyone who disagrees with your views (and I think there's already been one or two who've done that in the Commons bar late at night). Then again, you don't want to appear too cissy. It's a case of striking a balance between not looking like a thug but looking like you could handle yourself if it came to it. Got It?

Have a good one yourself - there's a long hard road ahead!

 

Today Psychosomatic, tomorrow the world, eh Mick?

 

You’re quite right.

The Tyranny of Email – as I mentioned already – fails to entirely deliver on its promise. And one of the reasons for this, as you’re finding to your cost, is the irritating padding and waffle. I mean, the history of post is an interesting subject (if you’ve generally lost the will to live), but the feeling persists that this stuff is put in just to make the book feel less like an extended magazine piece or essay – which, in many ways, it is.

I’m sure if you’d been more appreciative of the British Armed Forces, however, that the author would have dispensed with the dull stuff. Stands to reason. You bring these things on yourself, you know, by failing to revere Our Boys (even – and especially – when they’re giving it large in your neighbourhood).

Right so, I’ll get back to everything else (including Rebel) towards the end of the weekend, hopefully, unless I can slink away undetected from my wife once more. I’m not scared of her at all, so don't even start.

 

You’re clearly a man with impeccable moral credentials, Espania, and it’ll be a real pleasure defrauding the system with you.

Don’t worry about me looking off-puttingly hard and menacing on the campaign trail – it can’t happen. As an experiment, and simply because I’d never done such a thing before, I tried shaving all my hair off a few years back – just to see. A proper skinhead, in any event. My wife’s verdict: you look even gayer than you normally do. (Crushed)

I can’t fight to save myself – I don’t need to, I just pay people off – and start wheezing at the prospect of being punched. I’m trusting that commoners will warm to this effete vulnerability and mother me all the way to high office.

If you feel this makes me too “cissy”, however, I’ll brush off those kung-fu chops I used to practice in front of the mirror – take that, you bully, and that and that and that – and throw down some moves before every speech. People respect a man of steel – we all secretly crave a strong leader, let’s face it – and this ought to do the trick and settle their nerves, whilst marking me down as someone not to be messed with.

Plus, as reward for the initial 12 months of 100% taxation, citizens will also be relieved to hear that we’re planning to build the world’s biggest ever shooty gun-gun. Coming in at a thrifty 2.3 trillion pounds, the Tumesc ENT 4UMUM gun will spurt two million whizzbangs per minute and will cover an area approximately two times the size of Cardiff. It will make for an eye-catching addition to Cardiff.

Aha, I see what you’re saying about Chicklet, thanks. I hope he’s wrong and I hope that you’re right. I agree with everything else you’re saying.

Hmm. I wasn't entirely sure if you were making some sort of joke with "fare" and felt sufficiently discouraged by the memories of our awkward history of sharing mis-firing gags to resist the urge to join in. But I’m with you, though, I hate making spelling mistakes. I feel your pane.

Mick - good answers, I enjoyed reading them (again). Probably won't get back to you until tomorrow, though. (Watching the FA cup final at the moment, with Hearts presently leading the Edinburgh Hibernians 4-1. Nightmare.)

 

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you, Mick. Today is my first time logging into the site for a wee while. Anyway....

Fair point.

Although…..

….I feel I got my clarifications and apologies in early.

Fair enough.

You may argue that, yes – and I feel that you already did – but in order to spare myself writing all the same stuff over again, I can only really point you in the direction of my (quite specific) previous answers whilst very generally reiterating the point that your idea of what may constitute a greater good may (sometimes/always) differ from my own.

I might, yes, although I’ll kick myself if I’ve ever been careless enough to express my feelings this way. I like some/many aspects of the United Kingdom as it is, I dislike some/many others – and don’t see this changing anytime soon.

Born in Scotland, now an Irish citizen (living in County Cork). I would happily enough call myself Irish these days, although some people get hung up on pointless stuff like this and place great weight on the purity of nationality - an artificial construct to begin with. (I can bore you with how a notional Scottish nationalist may feel comfortable with such an outlook, but that’s maybe for another day – or, preferably, life.) This often merely feels a short step away from worrying about the purity or distinctive characteristics of race, an endeavour so needlessly divisive and small-minded (when propagated by nationalists) that it may border on the outright imbecilic or hateful. If these people just spent half the time celebrating our very obvious similarites as they do on making a case for their own distinctive or special race, I’m thinking the world might be a better planet to loaf around on. I feel embarrassed when I see people emphasise their race. It just feels awful, an intellectual and moral dead end.

Fair enough. For what it’s worth, I’ve lived in Scotland, England, Germany, Portugal, Switzerland (although only for about six months) and now Ireland. I’m not sure I know how to sensibly compare these countries. It’s so dreary, I know – and I’m simply dying to have an outbreak of fierce opinion - but I found and continue to find good and bad in all of them. (The transport infrastructure in Switzerland felt near impeccable, however.)

You could be right, unsubtly phallic weaponry and a seat on the UN Security Council possibly makes some people (from whichever country they may come) feel important? I don’t know. It’s an easy enough charge to lay at their doors, certainly, so why not?

It would be interesting to know which “westernised” countries you refer to, specifically, whilst saying “there are lots who get along fine without such toys [weapons], without sending their armies into others countries”. (I take your given example of Switzerland on board, obviously.) “Westernised” may be seen as rather a subjective term, right enough, and may make your list exhaustingly long, but it would still be interesting to see who these people are and how you feel they should have behaved or should behave in the event of trouble breaking out in their own geographical backyards either now, in the past or in the future.

And if they do fine without expensive weapons – which, to my mind, would be the global ideal, of course, if only everyone in the world would give up these hideous things for good – have they ever had cause to thank other people for spending heavily on weapons and intervening on their behalf?

Back in a minute.....

 

If you’d said this at the beginning, Administrator, I could have saved myself a lot of bother. I really can’t see any material difference in what you’re saying here to the points I’ve been trying to put across.

This will be specifically aimed at Britain, I imagine, and not at the US or Russia, say? (The use of the word “island” should probably have alerted me to your intentions.) Still, I do think that British politicians have a slight problem in setting themselves (and the UK as a whole) in their rightful (more modest) place in the world. There’s nothing much wrong in trying to punch above your weight, of course – it may be seen as being rather commendable, in fact – but the historically distorting influence of empire seems like a terribly hard habit to shake for some, which is a great shame (and sometimes acutely embarrassing for the rest of us).

I feel the rest of your analysis is maybe needlessly cruel and unfair and possibly doesn’t really serve any sensible purpose, save to sneer at the expense of other people - whilst, I‘m forced to imagine, attempting to cast yourself in a more favourable light in comparison? I do that myself sometimes and rarely feel good about it afterwards.

please log in to view this image

I think we may have agreed on this already?

Fair enough.

I don’t understand, sorry. Which is it? You “might be persuaded to indulge in a bit of self interest, with the added bonus of helping out a suffering people”……or “I am still allowed to moan about the rights and wrongs of intervening in countries for purely selfish reasons.” Sure you can moan, everyone can – no worries there – but does this mean that you will only be satisfied if an intervention coincides with your own selfish reasons for wanting one? Is it just when other people act in their own selfish interests that it bothers you? Or will you apply this seemingly angry distaste to yourself?

Again, I can only go back to what I said about it being impossible (for governments) to please all of the people all of the time.

I feel I’ve always understood and accepted this perfectly well and find no difficulties whatsoever in harbouring my own distaste towards the armed forces whilst affording them a simultaneous respect.